$α_{s}$ from the (revised) ALEPH data for $τ$ decay
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Theoretical or conceptualConsensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.169
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.778
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.126 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
We present a new analysis of $α_s$ from hadronic $τ$ decays based on the recently revised ALEPH data. The analysis is based on a strategy which we previously applied to the OPAL data. We critically compare our strategy to the one traditionally used and comment on the main differences. Our analysis yields the values $α_s(m_τ^2)=0.296\pm 0.010$ using fixed-order perturbation theory, and $α_s(m_τ^2)=0.310\pm 0.014$ using contour-improved perturbation theory. Averaging these values with our previously obtained values from the OPAL data, we find $α_s(m_τ^2)=0.303\pm 0.009$, respectively, $α_s(m_τ^2)=0.319\pm 0.012$, as the most reliable results for $α_s$ from $τ$ decays currently available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topic
- Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies
- Field
- Physics and Astronomy
- Canadian institutions
- York University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- AlephPerturbation theory (quantum mechanics)HadronPhysicsParticle physicsPerturbation (astronomy)Nuclear physicsQuantum mechanics
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes